On Donna Brazile and "the Deal"

Of course, the downside of being an essayist of exceedingly moderate and highly localized renown is that I am oft beseeched to lend my Waterman pen in support or in opposition to one Howard County issue or another (without even the slightest hint of a promise of remuneration!).  So, my mailbox is jam-packed with entreaties to comment upon the wretched petit fascists swarming about in HoCo.  There will, rest assured, be time to discuss them and their ilk. But once again, this author feels compelled to offer thoughts on the national scene.

Of late, Donna Brazile has been excoriated (in many cases, rather ruthlessly and unfairly) for her book where she shared her thoughts on, amongst other issues, the Clinton 2016 presidential campaign and the DNC (insofar as those entities were “distinct”).  As a political operator and strategist, there is no disputing that she is top-flight.  Having enjoyed one of her earlier works, Cooking with Grease, I will most likely purchase her latest tome, Hacks.   

Frankly, I can’t fault the DNC for the arrangement they made with the Clinton campaign in 2015.  No matter how many Democrats supported Bernie (the current author being one of them), the good Senator from Vermont was not a Democrat.  That left the watery gruel that was O’Malley (clearly eyeing a Cabinet post or 2020), Chafee (clearly viewing Earth from Mars via Providence), Webb (clearly out of touch), and Lessig (clearly engaging in some form of performance art).  When you have a candidate who in 2015 (essentially) was the clear front-runner and likely eventual nominee, and who actually belonged to the party, that person is…well… primus inter pares comes to mind.

But, some may sputter, what about the supposed precious neutrality of the DNC?  While the image of the DNC as some sort of disinterested referee is quaint, it doesn’t square with the mission of electing Democrats to public office.  I still maintain that Senator Sanders would have been absolutely savaged by Trump and the Republicans in the General Election.  Possibly enough to lose the White House, and probably enough to burn the electoral dreams of many down-ticket Democrats.  Secretary Clinton, neoliberal that she is, and the Clinton campaign, as bland as it turned out to be, was the far safer bet for Democrats nationwide. 

So, arrangements were made; nothing illegal (unlike the allegations swirling around Trump, his family, and some of his top aides) and frankly, I am not having a ton of ethical issues with the deal, as I understand it.  I find it helpful to learn the rules of the game before playing it (a lesson forgotten by Clinton ’08 when it came to delegate math) and clearly, Clinton ’16 had the primary campaign rules all sorted out. 

With so much “righteous” indignation coming from the Republicans over this tempest in a Diet Coke can, I wonder if those Democrats offended by the deal are wondering why they have all of these new-found allies on the right…and who really stands to benefit from stoking the ashes of this “controversy.”

In solidarity.

Cummings as the Vice Presidential Nominee

#2

Like all of you, I read the Esquire article promoting Congressman Elijah Cummings (D- MD) as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential candidate in 2016.

I have commended Representative Cummings for his leadership during the recent crisis in Baltimore. He really showed his mettle.  That said…Vice President? His selection wouldn’t be a bad choice, but I am not certain he would be a top 20 pick, maybe top 50.

He checks some boxes.  He is a capable legislator, a better-than-average Member of Congress. I am sincerely not trying to gosh-darn him with faint praise.  Really.  He is sufficiently progressive for most Democrats.  He would hold his own on the debate stage against whomever the Republicans dredged up, which is not a trivial matter.  He would be qualified to become President, which is a far more significant measure. That said, I am not convinced he is the best option from Maryland, much less all of the other states in the Union. 

Of course much depends on several unsettled factors.  The identity of the Democratic nominee is not yet known.  Yes, I have done the math just like you have.  I know Secretary Hillary Clinton is well poised to become the presumptive nominee in the near future.  But what if Senator Bernie Sanders becomes the nominee? Or what if a political earthquake occurs and a third person receives the Democratic nomination this summer?  The article assumes Clinton, but it’s not a done deal…not yet.

Congressman Cummings might match up better for Senator Sanders, although I think Bernie, if I may be familiar, and perhaps a majority of the Democratic Party might prefer a woman as a running mate…with Senator Klobuchar, Senator Gillibrand, or Hillary Clinton herself being interesting choices. 

Part of my issue with Cummings, frankly, is his age.  With the two most likely Democratic nominees being rather mature citizens from a certain generation, I would prefer a bit of youth with the #2 pick.  Yes, both Clinton and Sanders seem indefatigable, but we have all seen the age progression that occurs.  POTUS years are not the same as non-POTUS years.  I don’t think it is a bad idea to have someone in their 40s or 50s holding down the VP slot.  I like Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Sherrod Brown, but they are in the same age range as Cummings.

Moreover, despite the recent GOP successes in our corner of the universe, Maryland is not a swing state.  Electorally, there is little to be gained by such a choice.  Thus, while former Governor Martin O’Malley would be a qualified selection, he doesn’t help with the math to 270 electoral votes.  The same logic applies for Secretary Tom Perez, who like O’Malley, I would probably pick ahead of Cummings.

So who then?  I would short list Secretary Julian Castro.  His presence would likely not flip Texas, not in 2016, but I believe that that state will realign and become more competitive in the not-too-distant future.  Clinton – Castro would be a heck of a good ticket.  The case for Castro is simply more compelling than the case for Cummings. I may expand on this later.

And of course there is the double-down philosophy.  Let’s see who did that in recent history, oh yes, Bill Clinton with Al Gore in 1992.  Two modern (for the time), accomplished Southern Baby Boomers.  Clinton-Klobuchar would reflect a similar line of thinking; Clinton-Gillibrand might be trickier, given the electoral issues related to residency.  Of course the NY-NY angle probably doesn’t help Clinton, unless Trump is 1) the nominee and 2) greatly expands the playing field…in which case Clinton has much bigger problems.  Klobuchar would definitely offer more upside than Cummings from an electoral perspective.

It’s too bad that Kamala Harris isn’t a Senator yet, although if California is competitive in 2016, see the note on Gillibrand.

Personally, I think Senator Cory Booker and Governor Deval Patrick would be better choices than Cummings.  Both are statewide office-holders, NJ is more of a swing state than MA or MD.  And yes, Patrick turns 60 this year, but he is a youthful almost 60.

While not a fan of dynasties, I do admit that a Clinton – Obama (Michelle) ticket would be instant-awesome-in-a-can.

In short, I know those of us in the Free State admire Congressman Cummings. I do.  Many of us think he should have run for the Senate this year.  I did.  Would I be OK with him as the Democratic Vice Presidential choice?  I would.

But I think there are better options, from both the political and governing points-of-view, and I think the Democrats need the strongest ticket possible to win this November.  Hopefully by a wide enough margin, with sufficient coat-tails, to allow Congressman Cummings to become Chairman Cummings.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Opportunities

“Yeah there’s a storm on the loose, sirens in my head

I’m wrapped up in silence, all circuits are dead

I cannot decode, my whole life spins into a frenzy...”

Rumor has it that Mitt Romney was in his study, listening intently to this classic blaring out of his Klipsch speakers when he made his presumably final, final decision to not enter the ’16 presidential campaign.   Then, without warning, he hurled the caffeine-free Diet Coke clutched in his right hand into the fireplace…the crystal goblet shattering upon impact…and he screamed, “You can have Jeb!” 

Of course some sources are more reliable than others.  Personally, I believe he was quaffing chocolate milk.  Let the historians sort out that enigma.

For the true political aficionado, there is nothing quite like an election cycle with vigorously contested Democratic and Republican presidential nominating processes.  In the modern era, that means ’76, ’80, ’88 (more or less), ’00 (barely), and ’08.  Even then, 2000 just made the cut as Al Gore won every primary, with Bill Bradley’s high-water mark being a narrow defeat in New Hampshire.  He was done five weeks later.

[Side note: Pat Buchanan’s 37.4% showing in New Hampshire in ’92 against incumbent President George H.W. Bush made the GOP race interesting…for about two weeks.  Was it a serious challenge? No.]

With the latest reporting indicating that Hillary Clinton may push a formal announcement back to July, she is effectively freezing the field.  Oh sure, Bernie Sanders can keep living the Vermont Dream…and Jim Webb may find a way to run a campaign that won’t have the word “quixotic” permanently affixed to it (although his exploratory effort, to date, has been lackluster).  I have a hard time seeing Martin O’Malley make an aggressive push to secure the Big Chair, even if he decides to enter the fray.  Would he go negative on Hillary, knowing that it might cost him a spot on the VP short list or a Cabinet post?     

Will there even be any Democratic primary debates?  Clinton probably couldn’t avoid some forums if Biden jumped in, but why would he challenge Hillary?  His moment has passed.

So perhaps the tempest will be limited to the GOP contest.  Even with Romney out, two dozen legitimate potential Republican candidates remain, a figure that will probably settle down to closer to 10 – 12 by Ames, with a couple exiting shortly thereafter.   There will be action on that side of the aisle.

Still, it would be a shame for history to record 2015 – 2016 as a lost opportunity for Democrats to have a candid and thorough dialogue on the future of the Party and, more importantly, of America.  While a national conversation can take place without candidates, it is easier to promote an agenda when one is an announced candidate for the highest office in the land.  Can a debate be influenced from the Senate Floor?  Sure.  That said, a robust discussion of differing visions of government would be facilitated by a truly competitive nominating contest.  Obama was able to advance and refine his governing philosophy during the 2007 – 2008 forums and debates, as Bill Clinton did in ’92 when he faced off against Brown, Tsongas and the other Democratic hopefuls.  In both cases, it should be noted, the Democratic nominee went on to win the White House. 

And somewhere, far away from the spotlight, Mitt will ponder Whittier…

“For of all sad words of tongue and pen,

The saddest are these: ‘It might have been!’”

It would be unfortunate if there were prominent Democrats contemplating the meaning of those exact words in November, 2016.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

"Time Keeps On Slippin'"

I will keep this brief.  The 4:05 pm to Saskatoon is boarding soon and my sprint from Parking Garage A to the ticket counter resulted in four exclamations to “Watch out,” two muttered apologies and one spilled latte. Thankfully, the coffee wasn’t mine.

Anyone who believes they can run for President, seeking the nomination of a major party, and wait on announcing until the summer of 2015 is either a complete dolt…or Hillary Clinton, because she could get away with it.   She wouldn’t tarry to that extent, but she has advantages that none of her likely Democratic rivals can match: astronomically high name recognition & solid Fav/Unfav numbers among likely D primary voters/caucus attendees, a broad network of supporters (ranging from top-flight operatives to keyed-in local elected officials and activists), massive fundraising potential, a spouse who (when on his game) is probably the most persuasive advocate for Democratic candidates and causes since JFK, and a personal biography that seems ideally suited for the Challenges of Today.  Do you think Bernie Sanders is going to stop that juggernaut?  Extremely unlikely.

She could afford to wait, if she wanted to. That said, she won’t. I would wager dollars to doughnuts, that Clinton will most likely announce her intentions in early 2015...at some point between January 1 and March 31...most likely in the first half of that window.

For the record: I am not, viscerally, a huge fan of HRC.  Intellectually, I admire her accomplishments and respect her brainpower and toughness.  Genuine heavy mettle.  I think she would be a good president, perhaps even very good.

Perhaps I just find the Clinton family saga a little tiresome.  Maybe my thinking on the matter will evolve, and it is all about making the best choice from the available options.  That said, my last votes for a Clinton occurred back in ’92 (once in March, again in November).  Pissed off on how he handled the Lani Guinier nomination, I decided I would not vote for his re-election in 1996.  I ended up casting my ballot for Steve Forbes in the GOP primary, and for Senator Bob Dole in the General. 

But that was the other Clinton.  Fast forward to late 2007, I favored then-Senator Obama’s stance on the War and his overall positioning, slightly to the left of then-Senator Clinton… a good mainstream progressive from the Heartland. 

But now, deep into the second term of the Obama Presidency, with Official DC turning its critical, menaced and slightly rum-soaked eyes to 2016 and whispering of Iowa, of New Hampshire…and facing the near inevitability of yet another Clinton campaign.  One must ask, is this her time? 

In the post WWII era, few candidates who aren’t sitting Presidents, incumbent Vice Presidents or Bushes have had such a clear road to the nomination of a major party. Adlai Stevenson’s second run in ’56 comes close, and even he had to contend with Estes Kefauver, who was no slacker.

So who will step up on the D side?  I have a list of 38 names.  Many of the other 37 won’t run.  Some might explore it, then opt against such an arduous campaign.  A handful will get into the race, I would estimate no more than four or five serious candidates in addition to former Secretary of State Clinton. In short, a small field by modern standards. 

There will be a challenger from the Far Left (right this way Senator Sanders), a slot for a conservative Democrat who wants to over-correct based on one interpretation of the 2014 election results (greetings Senator Manchin), a couple of candidates who want to be in the mix because a) they believe they have a compelling story to tell and b) Hillary might stumble…let’s just put in former Senator Webb and current Governor Martin O’Malley in this category….for now.  The former is an interesting possibility, given his populist inclinations and swing state geographic base.   Potentially very interesting.  O’Malley was dinged, probably not irreparably, based on last week’s election outcomes in Maryland…but he remains a decided long-shot.

Oh yes, and let us not forget Vice President Joe Biden.  First, I don’t believe he will run again.   He had two decent opportunities. I recall his 1988 campaign vividly and his 2008 effort recently.  Second, he is a fine public servant but he is not the future of the Democratic Party.  

The progressive wing will long for Senator Elizabeth Warren, some of the unreconstructed will want the ageless Jerry Brown to saddle up once more, Rahm may practice speeches in his bathroom mirror, and Senator Booker will keep his calendar open for 2024.

Me? I will probably spend the Holidays pondering the possibility of a Cuomo, the reemergence of Feingold or Dean, the potential of Gillibrand, or if John Cusack is ready to take a break from this acting nonsense and get into politics in a serious way.   

That said, I will most likely be wearing a Clinton button on 12/31/2015…just like many of you will too. 

But who knows? 

In any event, it is all coming sooner than you think.  The calendar demands it.  Beware those who jump in late, history has not been kind to them.

With that in mind…up next…a look at the Republicans.  And yes, they will probably go Establishment again in 2016, in case you were wondering.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Surface Tension: A Topline Post Election Wrap-Up

There will be time for a deep dive into the numbers.  Now is not the moment.  Here are some initial observations regarding last night’s Election results:

The recent high-water mark for a Maryland gubernatorial race is Governor Martin O’Malley’s 56.2% in his 2010 re-election bid.  (Side note: what is he going to say in Des Moines? In Cedar Falls? In Sioux City?).   In 2006, he won with 52.7% and four years prior to that, the Democratic nominee for Governor obtained only 47.68% of the statewide vote.

My point is that Maryland has witnessed some competitive Governor’s races, four of the last six being won by single-digit margins. So even with the demographic trends of recent years, the 2014 gubernatorial election was unlikely to be a cakewalk. But any serious Democratic nominee for that office would have to be considered a significant favorite going into a general election contest.

Yet Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown lost, to a B-tier Republican candidate.  I believe this occurred because:

1)   Maryland was not immune from the Democratic shellacking that occurred nationwide.

2)   Biography aside, his campaign was uninspiring.  Yes, I was a Mizeur voter in the primary but I cast my ballot for Brown in the general; even though the campaign didn’t communicate much in the way of a positive rationale for such an act.

3)   Democratic turnout in MD was lower than expected. I don’t have the final or even penultimate numbers in front of me, but there was an enthusiasm/activation gap…and the Republicans ran a stronger than expected GOTV operation.  Also, the GOP brand seems to have recovered a bit from the earlier post-Bush 43 years, even though voters still show high dissatisfaction levels with both parties and with the both the President and Congress.

4)   “Articulation”-oriented campaign (covered elsewhere in this blog) can be tough.  You find yourself running against your opponent and the perceived sins of the affiliated incumbent administration.  I don’t believe the Brown campaign pulled together a truly compelling/cohesive narrative when discussing the O’Malley record.

Senator Allan Kittleman, apparently Howard County Executive-elect, would have been Governor-elect had he tossed his hat into that ring instead.  I am guessing he knows I am right on this matter.

How bad was it for Democrats locally?  Congressman Cummings' GOP opponent garnered 43.89% of the vote in the Howard County portion of the 7^th Congressional District and said opponent would, charitably, be called a perennial candidate. 

It appears as though Jon Weinstein pulled off a victory in Councilmanic District 1, a true swing constituency.  How did he accomplish this? I believe he did an excellent job of localizing the election, framing the race on local issues and concerns.  That appealed to a majority of voters in the First.

I still maintain that Courtney Watson ran a strong campaign for County Executive.  Look, had they not attempted to reposition Kittleman, he probably would have won with 55% of the vote in an election cycle such as this.  The comparative effort was necessary and generally decently executed.  Moreover, Watson provided numerous reasons to vote for her, not just against Kittleman.  She had a good narrative but it just wasn’t enough in a Rejection Election cycle (you can read more about that concept here: http://www.michiganliberal.com/diary/7278/).

The biggest bummer of the evening, for me, was 9B.   From a technical perspective, it would be hard to find a Maryland campaign better run than Tom Coale’s.  Running a positive citizen-neighbor-legislator style effort that was focused on local issues and finding practical solutions for the present and the future…it simply wasn’t enough to overcome a well-known GOP opponent in a highly competitive single-member House of Delegates district.

On the Howard County Board of Education, the results were not a huge surprise.  I voted the Apple Ballot because I believe they would have been an effective team.  In terms of intensity, I was primarily concerned with electing Altwerger (who won) and Beams (who did not…which was very disappointing).  That said, I am not displeased that Christine O’Connor won a seat.  I was not thrilled when she allied herself with Mike Smith, that decision dropped her to the fifth position on my list, but she was in the running for a while.  And thank goodness that neither Smith nor Dyer finished in the top four.

At some point, I am going to talk about people who sought public office this cycle that were unsuccessful...but who should run again.  But I am too cranky to write about 2016 or 2018 right now.  Let’s call it a post.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.